Things I Liked at the Irrigation Show

I have both, trust me, you will still get sued. I have workers comp, liability, umbrella, and a lawyer that checks everything yearly to make sure I have separated my personal from business. Sadly, the lawyer says some how some way I am still screwed.

Click to expand...

Isn't it the auto insurance company's responsibility to protect you from that type of lawsuit? Man that is terrible losing 10k like that. I feel for ya!

We do not burry them directly, they are in a box. Regardless the valve has to be installed before it is tested. I do not think you understand the logistics of the volume installers. I am not there patiently waiting for the moment the valve is installed. Thes tester comes 1-2 days after installation.

Click to expand...

True, and a point I meant to make: the assembly has to be installed where it's going to live and powered-up before a test is made. If the checks were tested and found faulty, we would permit "flipping the checks" and re-testing until parts could be obtained. No service would be permitted (including flushing), until we saw a complete BAT report.

I have not gone after my BAT because I agree with Tx. There are many DC's in the ground that do not meet code any longer. Since 01/01/2009 there now needs to be a Isolation Valve and Wye upstream. Many of these DC's are slammed in to a narrow ROW as well.

Last year I went to Dallas to pull a permit. They kept wanting to see the drawings and I had to go meet with the plumbing manager. It took me 3 hours to pull a permit for the R&R job.

The inspector failed it. I called to find out why, because he wanted to the prints.
This tells me few people are actually pulling permits for DC R&R even if it is code and it has to be tested and inspected.

You are right .... I don't understand the mentality of slapping it together with some rubber bands and duct tape and collecting your money as fast a you can before anything breaks.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should take a look at some of the pics I put up. We earned our reputation that gets us invited to bid those jobs. Also, unlike you, there are people that read these boards that know me personally, and have seen my companies work first hand. They both refer all the install calls they get to me, because they know I will take care of them and the customer.

We also offer 5 year warranties, parts AND labor. Slapping together a system would put me out of business fast. If a dispute arises we also will give the home owner money to hire a third party to inspect our work. Tell me, do you know anyone else that will do that?

The IA show is in Austin in 2013, maybe you should stop by and take a look at our "duct tape" company.

Why does a straight off the counter BFA require testing? I am sure it was tested in house at the factory under strict industry standards and guidelines.

Why doesn't the purveyor do the initial test of the fresh BFA? They have no problems testing their own installations and municipal BFAs in many jurisdictions.

When any BFA is tested, the test only certifies that the BFA was in working order at the time of the test. It could fail anytime thereafter regardless of the fact that it passed when tested.

A good lawyer, maybe even a poor one could prove that any assembly can fail at any time and that all testing of mechanical apparatii relates only to the condition of the apparatus at the time of the test.

This whole conversation is off base, the majority of posts are not focusing on the conflict issue but rather on their integrety or the liability involved in being a BAT/BPAT. No members integrety is at question here, we're all pikers and hacks at some point.

Every tester on the forum is likely to agree that purveyors performing their own tests is a conflict, why? If an individule can perform a test on his own work and be his own watchdog then can't we trust the government to do their own testing and be their own watchdog?

When any BFA is tested, the test only certifies that the BFA was in working order at the time of the test. It could fail anytime thereafter regardless of the fact that it passed when tested.

Click to expand...

True. I suppose one might argue that the BFA should be torn apart, inspected, reassembled and tested and/or every replaceable part be replaced on a set schedule, thereby reducing (somewhat) the potential snapshot effect.

A good lawyer, maybe even a poor one could prove that any assembly can fail at any time and that all testing of mechanical apparatii relates only to the condition of the apparatus at the time of the test.

Click to expand...

Also true, and per above the lawyer could argue parts that were borderline failure were not replaced.